Re: [PATCH 0/7] IB/hfi1: Remove write() and use ioctl() for user access

[Leon Romanovsky <leon-2ukJVAZIZ/Y@public.gmane.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2020 bytes --]

On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 12:17:55PM -0400, Ira Weiny wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 07:01:26AM +0300, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 01:48:31PM -0400, Ira Weiny wrote:
> > > On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 10:45:50AM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 08:41:35AM -0700, Dennis Dalessandro wrote:
> > > > > This patch series removes the write() interface for user access in favor of an
> > > > > ioctl() based approach. This is in response to the complaint that we had
> > > > > different handlers for write() and writev() doing different things and expecting
> > > > > different types of data. See:
> > > > 
> > > > I think we should wait on applying these patches until we globally sort out
> > > > what to do with the rdma uapi.
> > > > 
> > > > It just doesn't make alot of sense for drivers to have their own personal
> > > > char devices. :(
> > > 
> > > I'm afraid I have to disagree at this time.  Someday we may have "1 char device
> > > to rule them all" but right now we don't have any line of sight to that
> > > solution.  It may be _years_ before we can agree to the semantics which will
> > > work for all high speed, kernel bypass, rdma, low latency, network devices.
> > 
> > You didn't ever try to come and work on the solution. We talked about
> > finite time frame (_months_) which is doable based on knowledge that user
> > space parts are developed by the same companies and all our future changes
> > will be in one subsystem.
> 
> How can you say that I am not working on a solution?
> 
> We spent most of last week discussing possible solutions and I am in support of
> a more common core.

Great, did you show it to other RDMA stakeholders except Intel?
I saw nothing posted on ML or proposed for initial discussion, which
will be held in the next week or two.

It is a great opportunity to you guys to start and respect Linux kernel
collaboration development model and to stop to try to do it in your
corporate way.

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]